Hacker News Reader

Comment by epistasis | Hacker News Reader

Obviously? Just because a fish doesn't see water doesn't mean it's not there. They're just so used to it that they don't have the concept of "not water."

Look at this entire thread: Holmes was widely acknowledged to have a board that got her contracts that she should never have gotten. She got her investment money because of family connections.

Yet this entire thread is all about "oh but she was a woman and woman have it easy" despite no other women to point at all.

The lack of critical thinking is just astounding, usually HN is far more sharp.

View on HN

// Yet this entire thread is all about "oh but she was a woman and woman have it easy" despite no other women to point at all.

You are confused about what the thread is about which confirms the point being made that you are looking for offense.

This thread is about my memory of a bschool professor being more excited about holmes gender and age than in what she's actually done (which would also be weird even if holmes turned out to be a non fraud)

The broader point is that my professor was representative of a group of people which wanted Holmes to succeed because of who she was. Did they cause some degree of blindness? Probably!

That's not saying "women have it easy" to any degree. That part is in your head so you are literally offended by something you made up.

> usually HN is far more sharp.

Try steering a fast horse with blinders. Most people here hit a fucking wall at mach 7 when you try to show them reality.

> Try steering a fast horse with blinders. Most people here hit a fucking wall at mach 7 when you try to show them reality.

We're all going to find out when we see the movie anyway, right? We're going to see how she markets herself.

Your bias and/or obsession are blinding you to the situation here.

There are hundreds of Standord dropouts running startups. And if they do fraud, people call it out, the media reports it as fraud, investors and customers leave, and that's the end.

But Holmes successfully marketed herself with gender as a central part of her story, so that people like you would defend her, promote her and dismiss criticism against the company or product because you're so sure that it's sexism and not legitimate criticism.

The only reason the Theranos fraud got as far as it did was because everyone calling it a fraud got silenced and cancelled as sexists. Now that it's finally over they're saying "See! We told you!" and yet you persist in "No, you're just a sexist".

Yeah, when there's the comment of "marketed as a successful woman" it's "by who"? Media jumped on board, but that was heavily the message being pushed by Holmes and Theranos, Bagwani, because it was their lever to stand out. To then say "but not like that" is BS.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com